Sh. Anoop @ Sonu & Ors. vs State & Anr.
2019 Latest Caselaw 3792 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                            Date of Order: August 14, 2019

+     CRL.M.C. 3981/2019
      SH. ANOOP @ SONU & ORS.                  .....Petitioners
                    Through: Mr. Nitin Raj, Advocate

                          versus

      STATE & ANR.                                        .....Respondents
                          Through:     Mr. Izhar Ahmad, Additional
                                       Public Prosecutor for respondent-
                                       State with ASI Devender Kumar
                                       Respondent No. 2 in person

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

                          ORDER

(ORAL) CRL.M.A.33407/2019 (Exemption) Allowed subject to all just exceptions.

CRL.M.C. 3981/2019 Quashing of FIR No.927/2015, under Sections 498-A/406 of IPC, registered at Police Station Uttam Nagar (West), Delhi is sought on the basis of settlement of 25th January, 2018.

Upon notice, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State submits that respondent No.2, present in the Court, is the complainant/first-informant of FIR in question and she has been identified to be so, by ASI Devender Kumar on the basis of identity proof produced by her.

Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submits that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved vide aforesaid settlement of 25th January, 2018 as today, she has received an amount of ₹2,50,000/- by way of demand draft bearing No. 696931 dated 1st July, 2019 drawn on Union Bank, Branch Sector 4 Gurgaon, Haryana from petitioners. She affirms the contents of her affidavit of 3rd August, 2019 supporting this petition and submits that now no dispute with petitioners survives and so, the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question be brought to an end.

Supreme Court in Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Vs. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 641 has reiterated the parameters for exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR / criminal proceedings, which are as under:-

"16.7. As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing insofar as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned.

16.8. Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute.

16.9. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice."

Since the subject matter of this FIR is essentially matrimonial, which now stands mutually and amicably settled between parties, therefore, continuance of proceedings arising out of the FIR in question

would be an exercise in futility.

Consequentially, this petition is allowed subject to costs of ₹10,000/- to be deposited by petitioners with Prime Minister's National Relief Fund within a week from today. Upon placing on record the proof of deposit of costs within a week thereafter and handing over its copy to the Investigating Officer, FIR No.927/2015, under Sections 498-A/406 of IPC, registered at Police Station Uttam Nagar (West), Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom shall stand quashed.

This petition is accordingly disposed of. Dasti.

(SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE AUGUST 14, 2019 v